It can't outperform universal single payer because it can't perform at all for the millions of people with no access to it.

well done , you have just proved it:rotfl2:
You simply cannot read and cannot understand, you cannot even read you own links.

But hold on, maybe you can read your own links.

I wonder, did you simply edit what you took from your link and hope no one would notice so you could try and spin a line of bull?
Lets see, you claim your link has a definition, a definition by the government no less, thats really convincing stuff
your link says
Oh looky you cut it down to.....
wow you missed out quite a bit didn't you , is that because it contradicts what you claim:har::har::har::har:


It really is funny that is both you and aramike who have recently written
"I did a quick google search and found nothing".
Have you ever considered just going straight to the legislation in question instead?
Oh sorry thats a silly question , if you went to the legislation you might actually know what you were talking about .

Mookie - valid point. But it then brings up the question of if health care is a right that should be provided by the government. If not, then whether or not millions can access it or not isn't really the question. What your pointing to is that health care should be available to everyone, regardless. Thats a different matter - and my stand on that is that no, I am responsible for my own health care, just as you should be for yours. If you start with health care - where does it end? Does the government also owe you shelter, food, and a playstation 3?

Tribesman - See if you can follow along. I have established that part C and part D are private insurance. However, to use the term "medicare" - they must be APPROVED by the department of Health and Human Services which oversees Medicare. That means that yes - they are involved - only to the point of gaining approval. I could go out and get a private insurance plan that exceeds a standard part c/d plan in every way - but it wouldnt be classified as medicare part c/d because it simply hasn't been put forth for APPROVAL.

Anytime you go to a government agency to use their term, and get their approval, they consider that they own you. If you want to stretch an approval process (which must be renewed regularly) into being the same thing as part A or B, then your really reaching. In the respect of approval - of course they are "part of medicare" - without it - they wouldnt be classified as they are.

Again - if they fell under the defiiniton of original MEDICARE - then why are they even separating the terms? Thats why you didn't dare touch the definition, or the medicare card vs private insurance card.

Of course - you didn't dare link to anything substantiative regarding insurance subsidies either.

Look, I have an open mind. I looked for some verification of what you claimed - and didn't find it. So point some out. I am willing to be educated. I don't know everything - I am ok with admitting that. But you continually refuse to do it. Which - regardless of whether your right or not, makes you LOOK like your talking out your arse. Instead, you want everyone to take everything you say as absolute truth. Life doesn't work that way. Discussions and debates don't either. I have provided quite a few links, because I know where certain data is and don't mind providing substantiative information to people, so they can determine for themselves what they think. Too bad you refuse. Either it takes too much effort - or you are talking out your arse....

Nope. Not even close. Medicare is a total glutton. Absolute proof government run healthcare cannot control costs or perform efficiently:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...e/?test=health



@ Tribesman. You don't seem to know when to quit with any grace. I have never seen somebody on any forum get so pounded the way you have, and not know when to put the shovel down. :D Quit digging.

Read this AMA report as well. Medicare leads the pack in terms of claims denied. According to AMA, government run healthcare is not anywhere near as efficient as private sector care in terms of services rendered.

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upl...reportcard.pdf

Edit OOPs wrong message

Man this is bad....I got lost in all the statistics and dollar amounts and everything else. I think it's about time you guys figure out you aren't going to change the other's opinion anytime soon. Let the ballots do the talking.

Thats funny , is that a new definition ?
I didn't realise that people having to invent "facts" to support even their most basic claims amounted to me getting pounded.
In case you missed it Haplo was rather foolish and had to edit a definition just so as to be able to claim that his "definition" was correct.
I think that constitutes a flat out lie doesn't it, if he was right in his claims he wouldn't have to lie would he.


I can follow along fine , you were wrong , you were wrong again , you invented "facts", you were wrong ,you made a silly mistake in having to lie to attempt to hide how wrong you were, amd errrrr...you were wrong.
Easy to follow isn't it.
But go on give an honest answer for a change.
Did you really think you could take a cut and paste definition from a government website then alter that definition without anyone noticing?

BTW sea demon, in that report if the efficiency was so bad how is there only a half percent difference?
Actually how does the fact that 10% of the denied Medicare claims are because the people had no Medicare entitlements at all skew the results?

edit to clarify.
I see your problem there , I don't want everyone to take everything I say as absolute truth.
That is why I often simply ask questions. That way when people are able to answer the question they can debate properly.
What you appear to do is claim the answer to the question is wrong without even thinking what the question is or establishing what the answer could be.

With healthcare.

Yea if only they would listen to public opinion.

Pelosi, Reed and their minions are going to do their best to get this thing passed regardless of your best intentions.

After all you are not smart enough to know whats good for you and your country. :nope:

But this whole thread has wandered far from the original topic which was basically when el Heffe holds a staged 'show' its forthright and genuine.

When citizens gather to express their dismay there unruly 'tea baggers' who know not of what they speak. It is merely a 'staged' show by a radical fringe dont you know.

To true Steamwake. But the discussion shows the liberal double standard - if your informed and have read the bill, your a moron and if you haven't read the bill but support it - your a good caring, nuanced person, or simply a liberal legislator.

Edit: Mookie - why would it stop with healthcare? It didn't stop with social security, it didn't stop with food stamps for the poor, it hasn't stopped with Medicaid for the poor, or with welfare (cash payments) to the poor. History shows it won't stop.

Thats funny , you claimed in a silly generalisation that people who objected were people who understood healthcare legislation.
You then demonstrated that not only did you not understand healthcare legislation , but you felt it neccesary to tell lies to support your position when it was untenable due to your lack of knowledge about healthcare.

Hold on though, a quick question.
When you write....
....going on your proven track record does that translate as "too false"?:rotfl2:

Tribesman,

I posted authentication to my position, explained clearly the difference between government RUN Medicare and government APPROVED private plans. I have also pointed out how the private component outperforms the government run option.

What have you done? Whine over things you say were generalizations, yet you were the one to call those in oppostion "teabagging wingnuts". When confronted and challenged to provide proof of your insuations, you blindly ignore them, making further accusations without any verification. Perhaps you think if you throw enough stuff up, something may stick.

Its one thing when you ignore those challenges from an opponent. But you were even called out by someone who was looking to find out more - and yet you blindly ran on babbling and accusing.

And now - you call me a liar. How ironic. Whats more - how pitiful. You can't back up your arguement, so you have to twist the arguement into a personal attack. I explained clearly my position. I even left open the door for you to show me where subsidies existed. Had you done so, I would have admitted that I would have needed to review my position. I did in fact do a little research and found nothing. Instead, of debating or informing, you try to avoid all the discussion and instead try to discredit me with an uncalled for personal attack.

If I was a little less mature, I might get upset about it. But thankfully, thats not the case. Instead, I really do pity you. I don't know much about you, but your tendency to pretend to have a total understanding of subjects while doing nothing but demeaning anyone who disagrees, indicate an unwillingness to look at yourself and your views to further mature. Maybe one day you will realize that growing up means more than calling people names and refusing to consider facts outside what you have already predetermined.

What I do find funny - is that the tactic you now pursue is exactly the same as the liberals in power are doing at the same moment. If you can't win in the "arena of ideas" - try to discredit the opponent. Well, I will let folks like Sailor Steve, and other members I hold in high regard decide whether I am discredited. Your personal attack without reason demonstrates you are unworthy of ANY regard.

You had to flat out lie to try and authenticate your position.
Your idea of authentication was to take a passage , remove all the content that contradicted your claim and then claim that you were correct .
If you were correct you would not have had to lie.
The fact that you had to lie shows that not only were you wrong but that you clearly knew you were wrong.

Yes, unless of course you wish to redefine the word so that it no longer means liar.
Thats a good idea, why don't you post a definition from a dictionary but remove the definition and then claim you are correct:rotfl2:

If you were mature you wouldn't have been posting silly childish lies in an effort to hide from the fact that you were wrong and knew you were wrong.

I didn't have to try and discredit you , you managed that all by yourself by attempting a very silly and easily detectable lie.

Well you learn something new everyday.
I had thought that the government subsidies(Haplo says doesn't exist) which are paid to the health insurance companies(which Haplo says are not in medicare and don't make any money from it) were simply on a per capita basis with the standard subsidy paid each month to the insurer based on how many policies they were operating.
I never realised that the subsidies the government pays monthly to the companies on a per capita basis also have a risk equalisation clause which varies the payments.
So if for example you are a medical insurance company and you sell a medicare insurance policy somewhere like Miami-Dade your monthly per capita subsidy recieved from the government is actually double the amount you would get from the govenment than if you sold a policy elsewhwere in Florida.

Oh and to get back to Sea Demon .
Do you have anything to say about the government/private plan costing the government 14% more than the governments own plan costs them?
Would you have any comment on both the Congressional Budget Office and the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission claiming that the private involvement costs more and delivers no measurable benefit over the cheaper version?